A Sea Of Red

http://www.thedailybeast.com/newsweek...corruption.html

"Schweizer had been struck by the fact that members of Congress are free to buy and sell stocks in companies whose fate can be profoundly influenced, or even determined, by Washington policy, and he wondered, do these ultimate insiders act on what they know? Yes, Schweizer found, they certainly seem to. Schweizer’s research revealed that some of Congress’s most prominent members are in a position to routinely engage in what amounts to a legal form of insider trading, profiting from investment activity that, he says, “would send the rest of us to prison.”
....

"While examining trades made around the time of the 2003 Medicare overhaul, Schweizer experienced what he calls his “Holy crap!” moment. The legislation, which created a new prescription-drug entitlement, promised to be a huge boon to the pharmaceutical industry—and to savvy investors in the Capitol. Among those with special insight on the issue was Massachusetts Sen. John Kerry, chairman of the health subcommittee of the Senate’s powerful Finance Committee. Kerry is one of the wealthiest members of the Senate and heavily invested in the stock market. As the final version of the drug program neared approval—one that didn’t include limits on the price of drugs—brokers for Kerry and his wife were busy trading in Big Pharma. Schweizer found that they completed 111 stock transactions of pharmaceutical companies in 2003, 103 of which were buys."

We get what we deserve because we continue to vote to keep them in office...

Missed the 60 Minutes piece but the fact that this loophole exists is ridiculous.

The sad fact is, does this surprise anyone?

I think we've reached a point where we need to enact congressional term limits. I propose members of the House can serve 4 terms (8 years), and 2 terms for Senators (12 years).

but doesn't term limits prohibit the right of voters to elect their representatives?

I understand why people want it. It's just in my mind I don't see how it's constitutional. Having said that, I have no problem with governments (such as a city council) voting themselves term limits.

Isn't this old news?

I'm not surprised that it happens but I'm surprised that it's legal like is suggested here.

jbock13 wrote:but doesn't term limits prohibit the right of voters to elect their representatives?

I understand why people want it. It's just in my mind I don't see how it's constitutional. Having said that, I have no problem with governments (such as a city council) voting themselves term limits.

Perhaps you've heard of the 22nd amendment? That obviously shows precedent to amend the constitution to do that. This is the one instance where I would agree with nannyism in that that the american population needs to be protected from their own idiocy.

if, for example, the House decides to pass an amendment to the constitution to create term limits, then yes, I've got no problem with it.

But you and I know it will never happen. If the American public is stupid, it's nobody's fault but theirs.

jbock13 wrote:but doesn't term limits prohibit the right of voters to elect their representatives?

I understand why people want it. It's just in my mind I don't see how it's constitutional. Having said that, I have no problem with governments (such as a city council) voting themselves term limits.

The president can only server two consecutive terms, and that is not unconstitutional.

4everfsu wrote:

jbock13 wrote:but doesn't term limits prohibit the right of voters to elect their representatives?

I understand why people want it. It's just in my mind I don't see how it's constitutional. Having said that, I have no problem with governments (such as a city council) voting themselves term limits.

The president can only server two consecutive terms, and that is not unconstitutional.

Exactly. Because Congress passed an amendment establishing that. Even though honestly I disagree that there should be term limits on the president, but it is what it is.

And before anybody calls me a communist, remember that for much of our history, a President's term was not limited to 2 terms.

Which is true but I believe the 22nd amendment was drafted as a direct result of FDR being elected to 4 terms. Until that point though there were no codified limits, presidents served two terms.

What do term limits have to do with Insider Trading? Our elected officials shouldn't be able to trade on insider information that would send anyone else to jail (hello Martha). I don't care if they are in office 2 days or 20 years it's a crooked system that both parties have obviously taken advantage of. I'm glad that some major news agencies have finally reported on this maybe people will finally demand a change.

and that's just it. We can stop our elected officials from insider trading... by voting them out of office.

Terms limits were brought up, and I see the connection to insider trading, I just don't agree with it.

But instead we sit and whine about it and hope somebody else will do it for us.

Also about the 4 terms of FDR... I do think it was disrespectful to not follow the 2 term precident, but there was no amendment yet barring him from doing so. If the American public really loved him so much, then yes, the people have chose their leader. Likewise, I believe that term limits violates the American public's right to chose their representatives. If they quality due to he age and residency requirements.

It's probably unpopular, but that's just how I feel.